Introduction

Each theoretical application identifies a topic from one of the five environmental philosophy core seminar courses, and investigates how that topic interacts with justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

“Topics in Environmental Philosophy” was entirely focused on Thoreau’s Walden. While taking this class, I went to a talk during which one of the panelists said “don’t teach Muir”. Well, if we shouldn’t be teaching Muir, then we likely shouldn’t be teaching Thoreau either. Yet I’m dedicating an entire semester to exclusively study Walden. To understand the environmental movement in the United States, it seems essential to study Thoreau and Muir. The evolution of the movement in the U.S. was, and still is, impacted by these early environmentalists. However, the injustices perpetrated by Thoreau, Muir, and their contemporaries against Native Americans and other historically and systemically excluded people provide strong motivations to keep them out of the classroom. How can philosophy contend with the demand to teach students the canon of the discipline, and the problem that the canon consists predominantly of members from the dominant culture, who have demonstrated abject discrimination in their work? 

“Issues in the Anthropocene” was concerned with the philosophical implications of the Anthropocene: a new epoch distinguished by the global traces of human activity embedded in the geologic record. The class investigated philosophical tools for navigating this new age, and one such tool was offered by Robin Wall Kimmerer in Braiding Sweetgrass. This text wasn’t classified as philosophy, and wasn’t written by a professional philosopher. As such, it wasn’t surprising to hear students comment “this isn’t philosophy”. “Philosophy”, they said, “is about making good arguments”. And evidently this is not what Kimmerer did in this book. However, there are few female philosophers and philosophers of color. It is a discipline consisting predominantly of white, western males. Even if it is the case that Kimmerer, by the current standards, isn’t a philosopher, and perhaps doesn’t do philosophy, she certainly has a philosophy which offers much to those who think deeply about humans, nonhuman animals, and the environment. It is the responsibility of the discipline to acknowledge and welcome such perspectives into the canon. 

“Critical Animal Studies” focused on the complexity and diversity of animal minds, emotions, cultures, and relationships. Much of the material studied in the course subscribed in some way to advancing the status of animals in the human world. A common maneuver to achieve that aim is to compare animal suffering to human suffering so as to stoke human sympathy for animals. However, making such a comparison can be problematic according to the values of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. For example, in the novella, Lives of Animals, Elizabeth Costello compares factory farming to the Holocaust. This theoretical application investigates how philosophy can navigate the problems when nonhuman animal welfare and human welfare come into conflict.  

“Philosophical Foundations of Ecology” assessed the scientific foundations of ecological concepts such as the balance of nature, biodiversity, and invasive species. In addition, one inquiry of the course was how social values are linked with scientific investigation and applied science. A controversial applied science in which values play a part is geoengineering: large-scale high-risk climate intervention. Geoengineering is intended to prevent catastrophic consequences posed by climate change. Those who support geoengineering often present the technology as a social good, however, the social benefit of specific geoengineering techniques are dubious. Philosophers can help parse out legitimate and illegitimate social values in scientific endeavors. 

“Philosophy of Technology'' investigated how disorientation in space and place impedes global justice in the face of climate change. Heidegger, one author we read, suggests that the technological lens is responsible for this disorientation, and is even responsible for the crisis in which we currently find ourselves. The technological lens allows humans to perceive all that they encounter only as resources, which has enabled and continues to enable unjust explotation. However, the technilogical lens can offer strategies to address the climate crisis. Philosophers can tease out the limitations of certain viewpoints, and offer new ways of thinking that can help justly address the challenges we face.